Wednesday, 30 April 2014

I have recently been published
in a head to head with Sir Terence English in the Oxford Mail on whether assisted suicide should
be legalised in Britain. My contribution to the debate is reproduced below. Perhaps
not surprisingly I have said ‘no’.

Any change in the
law to allow assisted suicide or euthanasia would inevitably place pressure on
vulnerable people to end their lives for fear of being a financial, emotional
or care burden upon others.

The ‘right to die’
would so easily become the ‘duty to die’. This would especially affect people
who are disabled, elderly, sick or depressed and would be greatly accentuated
at this time of economic recession with families and health budgets under
pressure.

Elder abuse and
neglect by families, carers and institutions are already real and dangerous and
would be made worse.

Any so-called ‘safeguards’
against abuse, such as limiting it to certain categories of people, will not
work.

This is because
exactly the same arguments – autonomy and compassion – would apply to people
outside the categories decided upon and so any law allowing it for some would
immediately be challenged under equality legislation.

If for terminally
ill people, why not for those who have chronic illnesses but are ‘suffering
unbearably’?

If for adults why
not for ‘Gillick competent’ children? If for the mentally competent why not for
people with dementia who ‘would have wanted it’?

The news coming from
other jurisdictions which have gone down this route, particularly Belgium and the
Netherlands, shows a pattern of incremental extension and pushing of the
boundaries – an increase in cases year on year, a widening of categories of
people to be included and people being killed without their consent.

Belgium has recently
legalised euthanasia for children and in the Netherlands babies with spina
bifida and people with dementia are already put to death.

This is why British
parliaments have rightly rejected the legalisation of assisted suicide in
Britain three times in the last seven years and why the vast majority of UK
doctors, almost all medical groups including the British Medication Association
(BMA), Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and Royal College of General
Practitioners (RCGP), and all major disabled people’s advocacy groups are also
opposed.

Persistent requests
for euthanasia are extremely rare if people are properly cared for, so our real
priority must be to ensure that good care addressing people’s physical,
psychological, social and spiritual needs is accessible to all.

This issue is
understandably an emotive one but hard cases make bad law and even in a free
democratic society there are limits to human freedom. Our present law with its
blanket prohibition on all medical killing does not need changing.

The penalties it
holds in reserve act as a strong deterrent to exploitation and abuse whilst
giving discretion to prosecutors and judges to temper justice with mercy.

DR Peter Saunders
is a retired surgeon and campaign director of the Care Not Killing Alliance,
representing 40 organisations opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide
and euthanasia:

Yesterday the Northern Ireland Assembly rejected a motion
calling for the introduction of legislation to introduce same-sex marriage by
51 votes to 43.

This is the third time in the last 18 months that the
Northern Ireland Assembly has rejected a motion seeking to introduce same-sex
marriage.

Last year, MLAs rejected gay marriage by 53 votes to 42, and in 2012 the
plans were voted down 50 to 45.

I support Care NI and others in its welcome to the
Assembly’s rejection of calls to redefine marriage in the province and like
them will continue to work to uphold the traditional definition of marriage in
the months and years to come.

My heartfelt thanks goes to all in Northern Ireland who
wrote to their MLAs on this issue and all of those who prayed for the current
definition of marriage to be maintained.

You can read more about the vote here and here.
Amnesty International has apparently warned that a legal challenge is likely.
Same Sex marriage was legalised in England and Wales last year.

I have previously
catalogued on this blog the reasons I opposed the legalisation of same
sex marriage and have published 24
blog-posts on all aspects of the debate. My personal oppositions
remains unchanged.

Monday, 28 April 2014

Last week I
highlighted the fact that a faculty of the Royal College of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists (RCOG) is barring doctors with pro-life views from receiving
its degrees and diplomas. The story has been picked up by the Telegraph today.

Doctors and nurses who have a moral objection to prescribing
those ‘contraceptives’ which can act by killing human embryos are to be barred
from receiving diplomas in sexual and reproductive health even if they
undertake the necessary training according to updated FSRH guidelines .

Or to put it bluntly – if you refuse to fit coils or
prescribe the morning after pill (MAP) then you can’t train to treat infertility, cervical
cancer or HIV either. This effectively means that many thousands of doctors
will not be able to pursue a career in gynaecology and sexual health.

And yet the use of emergency contraception and IUCDs like
the coil makes up only a tiny part of the specialty of sexual and reproductive
health (SRH) which also
encompasses the following long list of conditions, treatments and
procedures: screening for cancer of the cervix, ovary, breast, bowel, prostate
and testes; all methods of contraception which act before fertilisation;
reproductive endocrinology; SRH epidemiology; miscarriage and ectopic
pregnancy; forensic gynaecology (management of sexual assault); genitourinary
medicine (sexually transmitted infections, HIV, AIDs); infertility/subfertility (male and female); medical gynaecology (menorrhagia,
dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia, endometriosis, PCOS, amenorrhoea, pelvic pain, PMS
,continence, menopause); management of menopause; postnatal depression;
prenatal diagnosis and psychosexual issues.

So the effect of this RCOG ban will be to drive those with a
moral objection to interventions which kill early human embryos (including
Christians, Muslims and others) not just out of family planning but out of all
these other areas of medical care as well.

This is an extraordinary case of taking a sledge-hammer to a
walnut more worthy of gulag or gestapo than what David Cameron has called a
‘Christian country’. Surely reasonable accommodation could be made for pro-life
doctors? Can the RCOG really argue that there is no creative alternative to
these draconian measures?

After all, allowance is already made by the RCOG for doctors who have a
moral objection to abortion to train in sexual and reproductive health because
the Abortion Act 1967 has a conscience clause.

But the RCOG, it appears, is exploiting the fact that no
similar legal provision exists for fitting coils or prescribing the MAP, by punishing doctors who want to
abide by the Declaration of Geneva (which enjoins the utmost respect for human
life from the time of conception).

This action by the RCOG is not just profoundly
discriminatory but may
also be illegal. Under equality legislation, it is unlawful to discriminate
against people who have ‘protected characteristics’ - treating someone less
favourably because of certain attributes of who they are. This is known as ‘direct
discrimination’.

Examples of direct discrimination include dismissing someone
because of a protected characteristic, deciding not to employ them, refusing
them training, denying them a promotion, or giving them adverse terms and conditions
all because of a protected characteristic.

These protected characteristics include religion or belief. It’s
also possible to be discriminated against for not holding a particular (or any) religion or belief. Imagine the
outcry if the College were to bar from training doctors who wished to prescribe
the morning after pill. But the belief
that killing embryos is OK, is a belief,
just like the belief that it is not OK.

So it appears, at least on the surface, that the RCOG might well be guilty of direct discrimination. The RCOG is claiming in the Telegraph today that these guidelines are not new as if that somehow justifies their position. But the key issue is that the guidelines are not just and fair and now that the news is out I'm sure that many will be concerned.

I expect that some serious questions will be asked in
parliament and elsewhere about this matter in the coming days and I would not
be surprised if some government ministers got very angry as a result, or if a
doctor, or a group of doctors and nurses, contemplated bringing a legal case
against the College.

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

Doctors and nurses who have a moral objection to prescribing
‘contraceptives’ which act by killing human embryos are to be barred from
receiving diplomas in sexual and reproductive health even if they undertake the
necessary training according to new guidelines.

Under new rules issued by the Faculty of Sexual and
Reproductive Health (FSRH) earlier this year these doctors and nurses are also to
be barred from membership of the faculty and from specialty training.

The FSRH is a faculty of
the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists established on the 26th
March 1993 as the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. In
2007 it changed its name to the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare.

Whilst many contraceptives act by preventing the union of
sperm and egg, some, including most IUCDs (intrauterine contraceptive devices)
and the morning-after pill EllaOne
(ulipristal acetate), also act by preventing the implantation of an early embryo.
In other words they are embryocidal or abortifacient, rather than truly
contra-ceptive.

Many doctors, of all faiths and none, have a moral objection
to destroying human life and wish therefore to avoid using drugs or methods
which act after fertilisation.

In fact this position was once held by the British Medical
Association (BMA) when it adopted the Declaration of
Geneva in 1948. This states, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life
from the time of conception even against
threat’.

But in 1983 the words ‘from the time of conception’ were
amended to ‘from its beginning’ due to sensitivities about increasing medical
involvement in abortion. The word 'beginning' was left undefined, giving doctors the opportunity to argue, contrary to the biological reality, that early human life was not actually human life at all.

Now it seems that doctors who wish to abide by the original
wording of the Declaration of Geneva are to be barred from practising in
certain medical specialties. This is an extraordinary about face.

The Faculty may argue that they are not barring doctors and
nurses from practising, but simply from obtaining certain qualifications. But as many job appointments will be conditional on applicants having these
qualifications this is effectively also a bar on practice.

Interestingly doctors who have a moral objection to abortion are still able to complete the
Faculty’s qualifications because the Abortion Act 1967 contains a conscience
clause which protects them. But there is no law protecting those who object to
destroying human embryos.

Many Christians believe that every human life, regardless of
age, sex, race, degree of disability or any other biological characteristic, is
worthy of the utmost respect, wonder, empathy and protection.

This is based on the idea, taught in the Bible, that human
beings are made in the image of God. In a society which is becoming more
hostile to Christian faith and values it is perhaps not surprising that we are
seeing institutional discrimination of this kind.

Perhaps it is time for Christian doctors and nurses, and
others who share their prolife views, to set up an
alternative training programme.

St George's Day, 23 April, may go almost unnoticed in
England, but the dragon slayer is also the patron saint of many other
countries, cities and regions - where traditions range from
street parties and carnivals to the simple act of handing out red roses.

An interesting
article on the BBC website today reminds us that Palestinians have
particular reason to display the symbol and revere the early Christian martyr.
For them he is a local hero who opposed the persecution of his fellow
Christians in the Holy Land.

St George was a Roman soldier during the Third Century AD,
when the Emperor Diocletian was in power.

It is said that he once lived in
al-Khadr near Bethlehem, on land owned by his mother's family.

The saint is remembered for giving away his possessions and
remaining true to his religion when he was imprisoned and tortured before he
was finally executed.

There are many churches in the West Bank and Israel today that
bear the name of St George - at al-Khadr, Lod and in the Galilee, for example.

In the 1,700 years or so since his death, he has also become
identified with other figures, some historical and some mythical.

The legend of him saving a maiden by killing a dragon
probably originated in the Middle Ages.

But quite why someone, however noble, who lived in Palestine
in the third century should be the patron saint of England is anyone’s guess, especially
when there is a far better home-grown candidate from the same century who
actually lived and died here.

The city of St Albans, where I live, is named after Alban, who is generally
accepted to be the first Christian martyr in Britain. He was a resident
of Verulamium, the Roman town on the site, at the time the third largest in
Britain after London and Bath.

Whilst sheltering a priest fleeing from persecution Alban became a Christian
himself and was beheaded for refusing to recant. The full civil trial that led
to his execution in AD 209 was advised by the son of the Roman Emperor
Septimius Severus who was visiting the town at the time.

After Verulamium had fallen into ruin they built a church and later a cathedral
out of its bricks on the very spot where Alban had lost his life. The cathedral
still contains a shrine dedicated to him.

Alban was not the only resident of St Albans to give his life for his faith. In
1555 a non-conformist, George Tankerfield, was burnt at the stake outside the
cathedral for refusing to believe the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation
(that the bread and wine at the eucharist literally become the body and blood
of Jesus Christ).

One doesn’t face death now in Britain for becoming a Christian or refusing to
believe denominational doctrine and certain not for being a non-conformist. (Our
own church was formed when a group of non-conformist believers were thrown out of what is now St Albans Cathedral during the great ejection in 1662. It now meets peacefully just a hundred yards from the Cathedral gate).

But that aside, the events of Alban’s life illustrate two great eternal truths.

Alban gave his own life whilst at the same time clothing a
stranger in a cloak of protection. In this way he was giving witness to his own
master Jesus Christ, who through his death on the cross in our place clothes us
with his own righteousness, thus protecting us from the judgement of God which
we all rightfully deserve. This is the truth of substitutionary
atonement, the very heart of the Christian faith, which we celebrate at
Easter.

And just as the bricks of Alban’s Roman town were taken to
build a cathedral as testimony again to Jesus, so the Kingdoms of this world
will be superseded and conquered by the Kingdom of God which will endure
forever. This is the truth of God’s sovereign rule over history and Christ’s
triumph over and redemption of all creation.

By God's design, Rome took the lives of both Jesus and Alban. But Rome is
long dead whilst Christ lives, and through him Alban and we also, if we respond
to him in repentance and faith.

So by all means keep George for England’s patron saint if
you will, but as for me, I’m with Alban and would be happy to substitute his
flag (left) for George’s Red Cross on a white background any day.

It needn’t change the Union Jack that much either - the various flags of Northern Ireland, Wales and
Scotland together would give us the same basic red, white and blue arrangement.
All we would need to add is a strip of yellow to the diagonals. Think about it.

Monday, 21 April 2014

An assortment of ‘liberal’ journalists, scientists and
celebrities have today accused
David Cameron of risking causing
‘alienation’ in society by saying Britain is a ‘Christian country’.

The 50 signatories
toa letter to the Daily Telegraph say
that Britain is largely a ‘non-religious society’ and warn about the ‘negative
consequences for politics and society’ that the Prime Minister’s comments
engender.

Interestingly, other faith leaders have defended Cameron. Farooq
Murad, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has spoken of the UK’s ‘deep historical
and structural links’ to Christianity and Anil Bhanot, managing director of the
Hindu Council UK, said he is
‘very comfortable’ with the PM’s description. Ironically, the Muslims and
Hindus appear more tolerant than the ‘liberals’.

On one level the 50 correspondents are correct. The
overwhelming majority of people in this country do not hold to core historic
teachings of the Christian faith such as those we celebrate at Easter - Jesus’ divinity,
incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and return in judgement.
Biblical teaching on ethics is also increasingly falling out of favour at a
practical level – witness Britain’s family breakdown, spiralling rates of
abortions and sexually transmitted diseases, epidemics of alcohol misuse,
gambling, debt and obsession with celebrity culture, personal peace and
material things.

In fact David Cameron has himself described his faith as
fading and reappearing ‘like Magic FM in the Chilterns’. His support of same sex marriage, his
weakness on opposing abortion and defending Christian conscience along with his
glaring omission of any reference to Christ’s death and resurrection in his Easter
address make it highly likely that Jesus and his apostles would not have
recognised the PM’s faith as orthodox. He may profess Christianity, but as I
have previously
argued, actually fails Luther’s test of confession.

But at another level the prime minister is quite correct
about Britain being ‘Christian’. After all, 59%
of Britons still self-identify as Christians according to the 2011 ONS
survey. And there is no doubt that Christian influence on British society has
been immense.

In his speech
on the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, Cameron said that
the Bible had ‘bequeathed a body of
language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage… from everyday
phrases to our greatest works of literature, music and art’.

Our politics too, he said, owed to Christianity everything from ‘human rights
and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy’ and ‘from
the role of the church in the first forms of welfare provision, to the many
modern day faith-led social action projects’. Not only did it place the 'first
limits on Royal Power’ but, even more significantly, ‘the knowledge that God
created man in his own image was… a game changer for the cause of human dignity
and equality’.

Cameron correctly echoed Margaret Thatcher who once said, ‘we are a
nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible’ and illustrated this with a list
of foundational Christian values including ‘responsibility, hard work, charity,
compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love…pride in working for the common good
and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families
and our communities…’

All of which raises the question why these 50 atheists and
secular humanists are so incensed by the Prime Minister’s references to the Christian
faith. Is there a deeper issue here?

Telegraph blogger Toby Young has rather provocatively
suggested that ‘the liberal metropolitan elite’ despise Christianity
because it poses a challenge to their moral authority. These people constitute
‘a secular priesthood’ , he argues, who see ‘anything that suggests there might
be a higher source of authority than them when it comes to matters of right and
wrong’ as ‘a direct challenge to their status’.
What greater threat to our moral status than the ‘God-man’ Jesus Christ
who asserted that he was both our Saviour and Judge?

But is there, perhaps, also a hint of jealousy? Malcolm
Muggeridge (1903-1990), the late journalist and author was a secular humanist
for most of his life (before a late Christian conversion), but, like the PM, was
honest about Christianity’s social impact. He said, ‘I’ve spent a number of
years in India and Africa where I found much righteous endeavour undertaken by
Christians of all denominations; but I never, as it happens, came across a hospital
or orphanage run by the Fabian Society, or a humanist leper colony’.

Come to think of it, the secularists haven’t actually been
at the forefront of the sort of community-led initiatives the PM has been
praising either – where are the secularist food banks, night shelters, street
pastors, debt-counsellors and drug and alcohol rehabilitation centres?

So my challenge to the 50 secularists is this – bleat as
much as you like, but if you really want to be taken as seriously as Christ
himself as a life-changing and community-transforming force, then please demonstrate
to us how secularism can transform societies and communities for good? Where is
the historical legacy? Where is the evidence that secularism is a positive society-transforming power?

After all, actions speak louder than words. And Jesus said
that the real test of a tree was its fruit.

Saturday, 19 April 2014

The prospect of evangelism causes many Christians to break out in a cold sweat.

To maintain our sanity we need to understand clearly who is responsible
for what in sharing the Good News.

In particular we need to address the questions, 'What is God's part and
what does he expect of me?'

Get the answers to those questions wrong and you
will find that your experience of evangelism is an unhappy one because you have
fallen into one of the following traps:

'If God is in
control there is no point in me doing anything.'

'I feel so guilty
that I don't share my faith with everyone I meet.'

'I must find a
better technique to make people come to Christ.'

'I give up! None of
those I talk to has followed Christ.'

So what's the answer?

We need first to see the big picture - it is God who is in control of
history and the universe itself. He is its Creator (Gn 1:1-2; Ps 8:3; 2 Pet 3:5),
Owner (Ps 24:1; Jb 41:11), Sustainer (Heb 1:3; Ps 147:8-9,15-18), Director (Dn
2:21, 4:17; Is 40:15,22-24) and Redeemer (Rm 8:20-22; 2 Cor 4:16-5:5)

It is he who will bring history to an end (Rev 5:9-6:1). His ultimate
plan is a new heaven and a new earth (Rev 21:1; Is 65:17, 66:22) where there
will be no more death, crying or pain (Rev 21:4), populated by a people drawn
from every nation (Gn 12:3, Rev 7:9) who have been set apart to do his will
(Titus 2:11-14; 1 Pet 2:9). He is now in the process of gathering this people
(Mt 24:31) before the world as we know it is destroyed (Zeph 1:2-3; 2 Pet 3:7;
Rev 21:1). This is achieved through evangelism, the proclamation of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:15-17; Rm 10:14-17).

God's Sovereignty in Evangelism

The proclamation of the Gospel requires human instruments (us), but it
is God's work. It is he who:

Gives us the Word to
proclaim (Rom 1:1,16)

Opens doors of
opportunity to proclaim it (Acts 14:27; Col 4:3)

Gives us the courage
to speak (2 Tim 4:17; Acts 4:29; Eph 6:19-20)

Enables hearers to
understand the message (Acts 16:14)

Convicts people of
sin (John 16:8)

Enables sinners to
repent (Acts 5:31,11:18; Eph 2:8)

Brings about rebirth
(Acts 2:38; Rom 8:9; John 3:3-8)

God does all these things! The fact that God is sovereign in evangelism takes an enormous burden
off our shoulders.

But it doesn't mean that we can sit back and let him do all
the work. William Carey, the father of the modern missionary movement was told
by the hyper-Calvinists of his day that if God wanted to save the lost, he
would do it without his help. Carey's refusal to believe this led to the
massive spread of the Gospel around the world in the 19th Century. God has
chosen to use us. It is certainly his work to open blind eyes and unstop deaf
ears, so that people will recognize Jesus as Lord - but it is our work (in his
strength) faithfully to proclaim and defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is
God's means to bring men and women to faith.

What are the Implications for
Us?

1. The biggest obstacle
to evangelism is not technique but opposition. Our enemy the devil's
opposition will take many forms...often our indifference means he hardly
need bother doing anything else. But in reality he is a defeated enemy
because Christ who lives in us has conquered him (Eph 1:19-21) and we
share his victory (Eph 2:4-7; 1 Cor 10:13; 1 Jn 4:4).

2. Our response needs
to be spiritual and practical. Paul's response was to pray and encourage
others to pray also (Eph 6:18-20). Prayer is central because it is a
recognition of our humble dependence on God. If he does not inspire and
empower our efforts, our work will be in vain (Ps 127:1). We must pray for
opportunities and courage.

3. But it does not stop
with prayer. We must also obey. We are commanded to ...'go and make
disciples...' (Mt 28:19). We have actively to step out in faith and take the opportunities he gives us.

God is in control of the universe and our own lives. Evangelism, the
proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is his work, but we are his
instruments. We need first to pray for opportunities, and the courage to use
them to step out in faith.

In July 1949, the New England Journal of Medicine printed
an article by Dr Leo Alexander titled
'Medical Science under Dictatorship'.

In it, he explains what happens to science when it 'becomes
subordinated to the guiding philosophy' of a political ideology.

'Irrespective of other ideologic trappings', he argues, the
'guiding philosophic principle of recent dictatorships' is to replace 'moral,
ethical and religious values' with 'rational utility'.

Alexander eloquently demonstrates how 'medical science in
Nazi Germany collaborated with this Hegelian trend' and became the source of
'propaganda' which was 'highly effective in perverting public opinion and
public conscience, in a remarkably short time'.

This expressed itself in a rapid decline in standards of
professional ethics and led ultimately to the German medical profession's
active participation in 'the mass extermination of the chronically sick' and of
'those considered socially disturbing or racially and ideologically unwanted'.

Britain is not Nazi Germany and is a democracy rather than a
dictatorship. However, all democracies are also susceptible to influence by
well organised minorities and it is very clear, in this post-Christian society,
that the corridors of power are increasingly filled by those who do not
subscribe to a Christian worldview and values.

In fact, many of those who occupy positions of influence in
our 'mountains of culture' – universities, schools, media, judiciary,
parliament institutions and entertainment industry – are actively hostile to
Christianity and supportive of public policy directions consistent with a
secular humanist agenda – eg. pro-choice on abortion, supportive of 'assisted
dying', embryo research and same sex marriage.

These issues are of course highly political. But is there
any evidence that the 'medical science' marshalled to support them is in any
way being influenced or shaped by secular humanist ideology?

Two articles in the latest
edition of Triple Helix would say 'yes'. They make the
case that financial or ideological vested interests can be used to stifle the
truth when medical issues become highly politicised. Both articles question the
way that British Royal Colleges have handled scientific evidence in their
support for a certain public policy direction.

Donna Harrison, Executive Director and Director of Research
and Public Policy at the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists (AAPLOG), argues
that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) has
misrepresented available scientific evidence to support its view that there is
no link between abortion and breast cancer.

She explains why a link between abortion and breast cancer
is entirely biologically plausible and points out how oft-quoted studies which
deny such a link 'often resort to errant methodology which obscures the actual
scientific question they were purported to answer'. She singles out for
particular criticism a frequently cited meta-analysis
by Beral et al on which the RCOG leans heavily in formulating its abortion guidance. She then cites a 2014 meta-analysis of 36
studies by Huang et al which looked specifically at the relationship between
induced abortion (IA) and breast cancer. It found that IA is significantly
associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and
that the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IAs increases.

Peter May, retired GP from Southampton, takes
issue with the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) over their
opposition to 'change therapies' for unwanted same sex attraction. He accuses
the College of locking itself into a 'born gay' ideology by ignoring the
evidence to the contrary. The College's argument that causation is 'biological'
has led to the widespread belief that LGB people are being 'true to their
nature' in homosexual behaviour. Yet twin studies do not support this view and
in 2006, a major Danish study reported,
'population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are
important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in
adulthood.'

The position of the RCOG on the abortion breast cancer link,
and the RCPsych on the causation of homosexual orientation, have both been
profoundly influential on public policy. In fact the latter has even helped
shape policy within the Church of England.

These College positions will remain crucially influential
this year with the Department of Health about to issue guidelines on abortion
and Parliament about to consider legislation seeking to ban 'change therapies'.

It is part of the role of Triple Helix to highlight issues
like this so that our readers can participate in these debates in a fully
informed way. They have profound implications, not just for public policy, but
also for fully informed consent.

As Peter May concludes, 'We have a mandate to be passionate
and honest about truth and to strive to teach it accurately. All truth belongs
to God, and all untruths deny him. We must insist that love and truth are
essential values in public discourse.'

Thursday, 17 April 2014

Tony Blair’s spin doctor Alistair Campbell famously said
that the Labour government didn’t ‘do God’ but the Prime Minister’s Easter
address to church leaders has him trending on twitter as #CameronJesus. Today
he has called
for Christians to be ‘unashamedly evangelical’.

David Cameron’s pronouncements have sparked controversy and
criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. Is the astronomical rise
of charity food banks a consequence of the Coalition government’s welfare
policy creating a new class urban poor? Is the exodus of traditional Tory
voters to UKIP linked to Cameron embracing same sex marriage? What would Jesus,
who had a heart for the poor and upheld the principle of ‘one man, one woman
for life’, say to Cameron about both these issues?

Would he side with the 40 Anglican bishops and 600 church
leaders who wrote a
letter this week calling on all political parties to tackle the causes of
food poverty? Or with conservative evangelicals who sought to prevent the legal
redefinition of marriage? Or both? Or neither?

But others have raised different questions altogether. Giles
Fraser, priest-in-charge at the
Parish Church of St Mary, south London, has criticised Cameron for reducing Christianity to merely ‘a
religion of good works’.

The Prime Minister’s praise for the ‘countless acts of kindness carried out by those who believe in and follow
Christ’ and his expounding of Christ’s command to ‘love thy neighbour’ is all
well and good Fraser says.

But it is not, as Cameron would have it, ‘the heart of Christianity’.
Easter is about Christ’s death on a Roman cross and his resurrection. And Jesus
was not crucified for ‘doing good’ but for what he said. Fraser argues that
Cameron has sidestepped ‘full throttle Christianity’ to embrace a diluted faith
devoid of doctrine that will be more palatable in a society which is
essentially secular and post-Christian.

He laments the fact that what we get from politicians is ‘a pallid
imitation of Christianity’, just ‘empty gesture politics’. Real faith, he
argues, means ‘taking hard decisions and standing by them’. It is about
addressing ‘darkness and struggle’. We have to ‘walk the way of the cross’, to
‘face rejection and humiliation’.

Fraser draws attention to those many places around the world where
Christianity remains a criminal offence and asks ‘If Christianity was illegal
in this country, would there be enough evidence to convict you of it?’

Cameron and Fraser are both partly right. Jesus did say that loving one’s
neighbour summed up the moral teaching of the Old Testament Law and Prophets.
And he did call his followers to take up their cross and follow him. He
demanded nothing short of utter obedience, complete devotion, with all its
consequences. ‘If you love me you will obey my commands’.

St Paul said that what ultimately mattered was ‘faith expressing itself through
love’ and that ‘everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus
will be persecuted’. Both service
and suffering are part of the package.

But, having said this, Christianity is not primarily about what we do for
God. It is rather about what he has done for us. This does not mean that
following Christ does not have profound moral implications. It does. But good
works are not the way to God, but a response to his grace and mercy.

The two key questions raised by the historical events that we remember this
week are not primarily about how we should live – important though that is –
but are rather about the person and work of Christ. ‘Who actually was Jesus?’ and ‘Why did he choose to die?’

Miss those and we miss the whole point of Easter. And the Gospel accounts
leave us in no doubt as to what Christ taught about either. We cannot divorce Jesus’ moral teaching from
what he said about his own identity and mission, and our predicament.

Cameron and Fraser each have part of the truth. But before we ask what God
would have us do, we need first to know who this man nailed to a wooden gibbet in first century Palestine actually was, and is, and why it was
necessary for him to die… and to rise.

Contact the author

Search this Blog

Kiwi, Christian and Medical

This blog deals mainly with matters at the interface of Christianity and Medicine. But I do also diverge into other subjects - especially New Zealand, rugby, economics, developing world, politics and topics of general Christian and/or medical interest. The opinions expressed here are mine and may not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or anyone else associated with me.

About Me

I am CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. The opinions expressed here however are mine, and may not necessarily reflect the views of CMF or anyone else associated with me.